The judgment establishes the fundamental right of the accused to legal representation and a fair trial, emphasizing the duty of the trial court to ensure the accused's rights are upheld.

Yuvaraj, the sole accused, in the sessions case in S.C.No.14 of 2013, pending before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, seeks transfer of the sessions case to some other Court since he was denied of fair trial.

2. On 17.8.2012, in her house, in Balaji Nagar, Lakkampatti Village, Gobichettipalayam, one Santhamani was found murdered. Her jewels were also found missing. It is murder for gain. Initially, a case in Crime No.539 of 2012 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered. Later, in the course of investigation, it was altered to Section 302 and 380 IPC.

3. In this connection, Yuvaraj, the petitioner was arrested. He was remanded to judicial custody. On conclusion of his investigation, the Investigation Officer filed final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 302 and 380 IPC, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No-I, Gobichettipalayam. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Erode.

4. The learned Sessions Judge directed the prosecution to produce its witnesses on 11.03.2013. On 11.03.2013, as part of certain Nationwide agitation, the Advocates in Erode and in other places have boycotted the Courts. On that day, as directed, prosecution produced the witnesses. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, examined P.Ws.1 to 13, marked Exhibits 1 to 10 and material objects 1 to 5.

5. At this juncture, the accused wants transfer of the sessions case from the said Court to some other Court on the ground that there was no fair trial before the learned Sessions Judge.

6. In the circumstances, a report has been called for from the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode. Accordingly, the learned Judge submitted his report. 7. From the said report, it is seen that as part of a nationwide agitation, Advocates have boycotted the Courts. On 11.03.2013, when the prosecution produced witnesses, learned Public Prosecutor was present. However, the learned defence counsel from Gobichettipalayam Bar and the local counsel Mrs.N.Manju Menaka Rajeswari were not present. In their absence, the learned Sessions Judge conducted trial. Examined 13 witnesses and marked some exhibits and material objects.

8. The witnesses were examined in chief only, giving opportunity to the defence counsel to cross examine the witnesses, the case was adjourned. It is also stated in the report that whenever the Advocates boycotted the Courts and prosecution produced witnesses. it is usual to examine them in chief and adjourn the case for cross examination by the defence counsel.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, would submit that the procedure adopted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge in conducting the trial is not fair. The right of the accused to be defended by a lawyer has been violated, thus, the entire trial is vitiated. Therefore, it is calls for transfer of the case to another Sessions Judge. In this connection, the learned counsel cited SUDARSANAM AND ORS. VS. STATE, D.S.P., PONNERI (1987 L.W. (Crl) 419) and MOHD.HUSSAIN @ JULFIKAR ALI Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT), DELHI [2012 CRI.L.J. 1069].

10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mrs.Sudha Ramalingam, the learned counsel for intervenor/defacto complainant would submit that witnesses were examined only in chief, still the accused has the opportunity to test the veracity of the evidence of those witnesses through the touchstone of cross examination with the assistance of his counsel. However, both the learned counsels submit that the trial court is bound to follow a fair procedure and also taking into account the right of the accused in conducting the trial.

11. Now, it is seen that the trial was conducted, namely, witnesses were examined in chief, in the absence of the defence counsel. In the circumstances, the question is whether the right of the accused is infringed and whether the procedure adopted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge is fair and whether the trial is vitiated.

12. In